Mmm ... maybe you've got me there - I've never really thought about that one Do you mind defining what you mean by "conscientiousness" please?

Maybe start a new thread because I doubt it has anything to do with this excellent topic you started.

It's OK the conversation can have some freedom. Like we could ask ourselves how can in a modern society people with good working consciences could hate a person because of who he loves; consenting adults? Especially if that person benefits society?

I KNOW RICH ROMANS LIKE TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH THEIR YOUNG MALE, caps lock, whatchamacallits. lol I spelled it right. It is my understanding that the Greeks and Persians were also free lovers while other societies like the Abraham clan wanted to stone them to death. I'm not sure how the Asians felt about it. I don't think Native Americans were gay until the white man came. IDK

This is a sincere attempt to understand how homosexuality fits into the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn't explain why there would be gays and lesbians. They are not likely to reproduce especially back when we were a younger species.

I think the starting premise is flawed. homosexuals can and do reproduce.

Add-People will die no matter what. Rich people get sick and die too. You can not eliminate it by getting rid of poor people. That post is so sad. Helping people releases good chemicals in the brain, gives you a good feeling, and you are loved by all you touch and will be remembered, immortalized, by your kindness. It also would create a less violent world where your chances of being murdered drop dramatically. Desperate people do desperate things!

That's interesting. I never mentioned rich or poor people, but as you read my post, you inserted Social Darwinism onto it, and assumed that rich people were intelligent and poor people were dumb. If you wish to interact on a forum, you should pay attention to what is written, not your preconceptions. If you don't, then all you learn is what you knew in the first place. Your post also assumes that I was endorsing Social Darwinism, when your question was "why doesn't a utopia evolve". You then rejected the obvious fact, that it hasn't evolved, so it can't, and inserted your own belief that my attitude is what is obstructing your proposed utopia, that you know can't happen anyway.

Put simply, again: if you have one tribe of people who are getting along, and the tribe next door decides that it would profit from killing and raping the peaceful tribe, then the violent tribe wins. In order to prevent this happening, the peaceful tribe needs to have huge army, and be able to think like the violent tribes. Hypocrisy then evolves.

The uptopia you want, is a Marxist mental thing. It can't really be evolved.

This is a sincere attempt to understand how homosexuality fits into the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn't explain why there would be gays and lesbians. They are not likely to reproduce especially back when we were a younger species. Please do not say it's bad DNA because that would be very insulting to the LBGT community.

There is no such thing as “bad DNA”. DNA carries no morality, DNA does not have the capacity to bother what it is doing or not. Genes that give the Lou Gehrig syndrome ([wiki]Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis[/wiki]) are as valid as any other gene.

Next, let me say that when I use the word “mutation”, I simply mean “one that differs, beneficially or otherwise.”

We are, for the most part, unaware of what genes we carry. We are even less aware of what genes our partners carry. We breed away quite happily and, quite independently, the genes get on with their job. This ignorance of our genes causes mutations to appear throughout all generations.

Let us assume that LBGT traits are genetic – it seems likely, but there is, as far as I am aware, no real evidence to this effect.

The thing is with genes that combinations of them are not expressed until the actually combine, and even then they are expressed in different ways. You can be a carrier of what is seen as a defective or beneficial gene but not pass it on through your partner. If your partner has a gene, which, in combination with yours, produces a benefit or disadvantage, the active genetic code is passed on some or all of your offspring. The offspring may then either not have the gene, have it as a carrier, or actually manifest the gene as a mutation.

By the time the affected offspring is manifesting LBGT traits, the parent has already bonded and so, nothing is done.

A couple of hundred years ago, if you were LBGT, you were either killed or live a full and happy life – either way, as the possessor of LBGT genes, you did not pass them on but your siblings, who stood a fair chance of possessing carrier genes, unknowingly continued the gene’s expression into future generations.

There is no “purpose” to LBGT genes. As I said above, genes are simply “there”.

So when you ask, “How [does] homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution?” the answer is: “It demonstrates the way genes work.” It has no “purpose.” Not everything has to have a “purpose.”Evolution is blind and unthinking. You may as well ask, “How do blue and brown eyes fit into evolution?”

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 08:18:48 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Add-People will die no matter what. Rich people get sick and die too. You can not eliminate it by getting rid of poor people. That post is so sad. Helping people releases good chemicals in the brain, gives you a good feeling, and you are loved by all you touch and will be remembered, immortalized, by your kindness. It also would create a less violent world where your chances of being murdered drop dramatically. Desperate people do desperate things!

That's interesting. I never mentioned rich or poor people, but as you read my post, you inserted Social Darwinism onto it, and assumed that rich people were intelligent and poor people were dumb. If you wish to interact on a forum, you should pay attention to what is written, not your preconceptions. If you don't, then all you learn is what you knew in the first place. Your post also assumes that I was endorsing Social Darwinism, when your question was "why doesn't a utopia evolve". You then rejected the obvious fact, that it hasn't evolved, so it can't, and inserted your own belief that my attitude is what is obstructing your proposed utopia, that you know can't happen anyway.

Put simply, again: if you have one tribe of people who are getting along, and the tribe next door decides that it would profit from killing and raping the peaceful tribe, then the violent tribe wins. In order to prevent this happening, the peaceful tribe needs to have huge army, and be able to think like the violent tribes. Hypocrisy then evolves.

The uptopia you want, is a Marxist mental thing. It can't really be evolved.

This is a sincere attempt to understand how homosexuality fits into the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn't explain why there would be gays and lesbians. They are not likely to reproduce especially back when we were a younger species. Please do not say it's bad DNA because that would be very insulting to the LBGT community.

There is no such thing as “bad DNA”. DNA carries no morality, DNA does not have the capacity to bother what it is doing or not. Genes that give the Lou Gehrig syndrome ([wiki]Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis[/wiki]) are as valid as any other gene.

Next, let me say that when I use the word “mutation”, I simply mean “one that differs, beneficially or otherwise.”

We are, for the most part, unaware of what genes we carry. We are even less aware of what genes our partners carry. We breed away quite happily and, quite independently, the genes get on with their job. This ignorance of our genes causes mutations to appear throughout all generations.

Let us assume that LBGT traits are genetic – it seems likely, but there is, as far as I am aware, no real evidence to this effect.

The thing is with genes that combinations of them are not expressed until the actually combine, and even then they are expressed in different ways. You can be a carrier of what is seen as a defective or beneficial gene but not pass it on through your partner. If your partner has a gene, which, in combination with yours, produces a benefit or disadvantage, the active genetic code is passed on some or all of your offspring. The offspring may then either not have the gene, have it as a carrier, or actually manifest the gene as a mutation.

By the time the affected offspring is manifesting LBGT traits, the parent has already bonded and so, nothing is done.

A couple of hundred years ago, if you were LBGT, you were either killed or live a full and happy life – either way, as the possessor of LBGT genes, you did not pass them on but your siblings, who stood a fair chance of possessing carrier genes, unknowingly continued the gene’s expression into future generations.

There is no “purpose” to LBGT genes. As I said above, genes are simply “there”.

So when you ask, “How [does] homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution?” the answer is: “It demonstrates the way genes work.” It has no “purpose.” Not everything has to have a “purpose.”Evolution is blind and unthinking. You may as well ask, “How do blue and brown eyes fit into evolution?”

Textbook definition of evolution: a change in allelic frequency in a population.Definition of allele (allelic): any heritable traitSurvival of the fittest: refers to which organisms in a given group produce the most offspring

Survival of the fittest is talking about which inherited traits increase an organism's odds of survival among scarce resources. It has nothing whatsoever to do with temperament or personality.

Having cleared that up, I'm not sure that evolution really has much else to do with this topic although it's interesting. There's credible research available all over the internet into which biological possibilities might account for non-hetero orientation - it appears certain that there is a biological aspect to it, related to hormones and timing of certain events in utero but homosexuality is only one of the possible outcomes associated with it.

There's also a ton of credible information available online about evolution. A Google search for Biology 101 turned up a bunch of links, same for Evolution 101. A Google Scholar search points you directly at all the research you could ever want. Just make sure the sources are peer-reviewed, rather than opinions.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

^^^My own fault for multi-tasking badly - I never quite made my point:I'm not sure that evolution CAN account for homosexual (or non-hetero if you prefer) orientation, as I don't think orientation is a heritable trait. By definition, it almost CAN'T be - but I'm not up-to-the-minute on what exactly has been identified to date.

I'm actually kind of curious now though, and will follow up with my biology prof when he gets back next week - he's a great source for Genome Project questions. If he points me toward anything relevant I'll post it here.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

I think that another reason (though it's been touched on in a number of responses here) is the fact that the human population no longer depends on just the "fittest" as it might in populations of other animals where natural survival ability dictates far more which individuals will live to pass on their genes.

In his essay Darwin's Untimely Burial (1976), Stephen Jay Gould specifically addresses what Darwin meant by "fitness", and notes: "criteria of fitness independent of survival can be applied to nature and have been used consistently evolutionists." And concludes: "Darwin's independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, 'improved design,' but not 'improved' in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, 'improved' meant only 'better designed for an immediate, local environment.'"

And concludes: "Darwin's independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, 'improved design,' but not 'improved' in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, 'improved' meant only 'better designed for an immediate, local environment.'"

Bingo. As I've said before, I am one of the "fittest" people in my office. When they look askance at my wibbly flubba-dubba that passes for a body, I complete the thought that I am "fittest for my designed purpose of sitting on the couch, watching TV and eating chocolate".

And concludes: "Darwin's independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, 'improved design,' but not 'improved' in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, 'improved' meant only 'better designed for an immediate, local environment.'"

Bingo. As I've said before, I am one of the "fittest" people in my office. When they look askance at my wibbly flubba-dubba that passes for a body, I complete the thought that I am "fittest for my designed purpose of sitting on the couch, watching TV and eating chocolate".

Well like I said I think that men w/o wives had to let go somehow. Kind of like prisoners do when restricted from female company. Women maybe because they're men did not know how to bring them to orgasm. I know this had a lot to do with why I am lesbian. I am not unattracted to the male it's just they could not bring me to scream. So I chose a female partner instead.

Sounds yummy Nam.!!!

I can't see that any of my toughness was passed down to my son. He is totally hetero and lazy like my parents. I have hope he will grow out of it, the laziness that is. Yes as a gay I prayed for a straight child. With personal experience as to how cruel the world can be to gays I did not wish this for my child.

Yes as a gay I prayed for a straight child. With personal experience as to how cruel the world can be to gays I did not wish this for my child.

So would you say that god made him straight, or perhaps he is straight due to a 9/10 chance of being heterosexual?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I don't think God makes us gay or straight. Although I think it's possible that homosexuality was implanted with the seed of life and what happens happens.

Another thing is, evolutionarily, all the homosexual women have just about an equal chance to produce offspring as heterosexual women. Women have been given more control over their own bodies, but only relatively recently. Back in the day, a father would probably marry his daughter off whether she wanted some cock or not. Then, her newly-wed husband was free to rape her. Chances are, she would care for the babies because it seems that homosexuals are fond of babies as much as heterosexuals are.

As far as the male homosexuals go, no, I would say that the dick needs to be hard in order to impregnate. If the man isn't attracted to the woman, then he will definitely not get her pregnant. But, don't worry, there are always plenty of horny heterosexual men around that will execute the deed. And, homosexual men can help their fellow humans survive by helping them.

If an insignificant "flaw" like "the existence of homosexual men who are a minority" isn't enough of a factor to make us go extinct, that's probably why you still see humans around from time to time.

As far as the male homosexuals go, no, I would say that the dick needs to be hard in order to impregnate. If the man isn't attracted to the woman, then he will definitely not get her pregnant. But, don't worry, there are always plenty of horny heterosexual men around that will execute the deed. And, homosexual men can help their fellow humans survive by helping them.

Not every male homosexuel is 100% oriented towards men only. Most in fact, are not. If it means the difference between being an accepted member of society or being a 'depraved' outcast, quite a few will be perfectly capable of 'lying back and thinking of England' so to speak. Something like this happened in Game of Thrones where the new wife of the king[1] even offers to get his lover involved just to get him hard enough to impregnate her.

Not all women are 100% either. They are called bisexual. There are those that hate their bodies so much they have them surgically altered. I wonder what this will eventually lead to evolutionarily speaking.

junebug, the fact of the matter is that evolution is not just shorthand for "survival of the fittest". That's a misnomer, actually. The 'fittest' doesn't always survive, and it's not about individual survival anyway. What matters is whether enough members of the species survive to maturity so they can reproduce. Provided that happens, it doesn't matter if the others reproduce or not.

Plus, at least in social animals such as humans, you have a tendency for the community to band together for protection and survival. That means homosexual individuals who may never reproduce can still contribute to the survival of the species by providing an extra pair of hands. Don't underestimate the effect that would have for a society on the edge of survival. And someone who helps to provide for young but doesn't reproduce themselves increases the odds that those young will survive.

I mean, look at ants and bees. Most of them cannot reproduce - they're dead ends as far as evolution goes. Yet because of all the stuff they do, including caring for and feeding the young, the chances of those young surviving to become the next generation of ants and bees is far greater than it would otherwise be. So, despite the fact that neuters are totally useless as far as passing genetic material on goes, they drastically increase the odds of the species surviving.

Yes, it's true, humans don't have neuters the way that ants and bees do. But so what? Not every member in a species has to pass on its genetic material in order for the species to survive. Indeed, it helps immensely if some of them are doing other things besides trying to pass on genetic material. And I think that's why homosexuality has tended to persist for so long.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

In terms of overall human evolution, such behaviors and sexual variations are probably neutral, or only slightly negative (in terms of allowing an individual to reproduce and pass those traits on). So barring deliberate human intervention, they will probably persist in our species for a long time to come.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius